Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower; the description adds non-annotation context that it is credit-free and that the payload should be written verbatim with UTF-8 encoding. It does not mention size limits, truncation, or error behavior for large prospect lists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the tool family and action, with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return field (`csvContent`), its format (CSV text), and required encoding — exactly what an agent needs to consume the result. Nothing essential is missing for a single-param export tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents `projectId` including its source (list_projects). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (a project's prospect list) plus the exact form of the output (CSV text). This clearly differentiates it from sibling read tools like list_link_prospects and the inverse import_link_prospects_csv.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It notes the operation is FREE (no credits) and instructs the agent to save the returned `csvContent` to a .csv file as-is (UTF-8), which is useful post-call guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., list_link_prospects for paged JSON access, import_link_prospects_csv for the reverse direction).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.